Political and media polarization produces schizophrenia. For the “common sense” of a citizen exposed to traditional media and digital platforms, the popularity of Claudia Sheinbaum or the predominance of Morena seems absurd. Any resident of an affluent neighborhood has plenty of reasons to be exasperated with the 4T governments and an endless flow of news reporting the excesses, mistakes, or inconsistencies of the political class in power. However, the fact is harsh: the approval of the president’s government has settled around 70% and seems resistant to scandals that, “inexplicably,” do not dent this figure.
The mystery disappears when we realize that the “common sense” of a Metro passenger, a construction worker, or a seamstress is different from that of someone living in a house with a two-car garage. Not because they lack information or live deceived, but because their reality is nourished by “other data”: data they do not get from a newspaper or a TV analysis panel, but from their environment and their pocket. INEGI has just put into numbers the enormous social transfer that has taken place in the last eight years from the wealthy sectors to the poorest: wage earners increased their share of GDP from 26.7% to 30.8%, four points. The increase means 1.5 trillion pesos more each year in workers’ pockets (one thousand five hundred times one billion pesos). The business surplus dropped from 44% to 40% as a proportion of GDP. Essentially, the pie distribution changed or, to put it another way, the business share in 2018 was 44% and the workers’ share less than 27% in the distribution of productive effort; that is, a 17-point difference. Today it has dropped to less than 10, and counting.
Obviously, this is a phenomenon that reversed the trends with which the system’s logic operated in the last 50 years, during which prosperous sectors were privileged. Nor is it a secret how this inversion or transfer in favor of popular sectors occurred: a real and very significant increase in minimum wages, the end of outsourcing, direct subsidies and pensions, and a reorientation of public investment.
There is nothing mysterious about many Mexicans deciding based on their specific interests. The strange thing would be if the opposite happened. The purchasing power of popular sectors has increased compared to the past. Why would they want to vote for the political and economic project of previous governments?
Because they have lost freedoms? Because López Obrador made unprofitable public projects? Because the CNDH lost autonomy or unqualified judges entered with the judicial reform? Because notable 4T figures indulge in conspicuous luxury? Because of the bad taste and impropriety of the Executive condemning by name the journalists who criticize him? In short, because of the frustrating inconsistencies and mistakes of the morenista movement?
All the above is part of the public conversation, it is true. But in street perception, it is no different from what happened in the past. Accusing them of being “the same” as the previous ones indeed denigrates the current ones, but it is not exactly a slogan to convince someone to return to the arms of the previous ones.
With one difference: they will be “the same” in many things, but not in what truly matters to the majority of the population. The debate about the CNDH; whether information transparency has increased or decreased after the disappearance of autonomous bodies, or whether the cancellation of Andy López Beltrán’s visa is a scandal, pales in comparison to the fact that the average salary of an IMSS worker went from $10,770 pesos monthly in 2018 to $20,419 in 2026: nominally double and 64% in real terms, discounting inflation. Specifically, it means a worker can buy almost twice what they could eight years ago. We are talking about 23 million workers, plus another 17 million people who depend on them.
Besides a psychological effect, there is also a tangible impact in terms of purchasing power as a result of pensions for the elderly, scholarships for schoolchildren, youth, and working women, many of whom are not in the IMSS. The reorientation of spending to sectors like education and health, which had been neglected by neoliberal governments convinced of the inefficiency of public institutions and their desire to encourage private expansion in those areas, is also not negligible. In the long run, expanding slots in public high schools and universities or implementing a universal health system will have an impact on these sectors, despite shortcomings or criticisms. For many, it will make a difference; for others, in the worst case, there will be the feeling that at least something is being attempted that past governments ignored.
There is, then, a different composition of shares: the wage mass won and the weight of what businesses take decreased. But the political implications are immense because the benefited sector includes the bulk of the population. If there are specific data showing that the current government has benefited the majority, why should it surprise us that the majority also show this when surveyed or going to the polls?
All the above does not mean we should unconditionally applaud the 4T government or ignore its mistakes. Without criticism and self-criticism, it will never overcome its exasperating burdens and inconsistencies. Not to mention that the redistribution scheme in favor of popular sectors will no longer be financed if economic growth and private investment that generate jobs are not reactivated. But it is advisable not to lose perspective. Betting on the collapse of this country project, without having another viable for the majority, is a leap into the void. In terms of social justice, the 4T achieved a change the country urgently needed; what follows will require a more demanding and refined version, or it will risk exhaustion.
Read more De la Espriella celebrates the results of a military operation with corpses on the ground
